Dogs as asset and liability in Woodland Park

Seattle has ramped up enforcement of dog laws. A park ranger and two animal control officers are patrolling high-complaint city parks on a rolling basis for violations of animal control laws including off leash citations, missing dog tags, and lack of waste bags. The fees related to these citations can add up quickly.

Woodland Park, location of Wallyhood’s local off leash dog park, is one of three high complaint parks to be targeted. So be aware next time you head out with your dog for some exercise.

The chart at right shows the location and frequency of 4,818 off-leash dog complaints
in the city of Seattle since the 2009. Not surprisingly, the most complaints come from Seattle’s largest parks: Woodland, Magnuson, and Discovery.

Hard data is hard to find on just how many citations are being written since the ramp up began earlier this year, but anecdotal evidence from the Wallyhood discussion board and the Wallingford/Fremont Facebook group suggests enforcement is up.

Those online communities showcase that dogs are a charged topic in the neighborhood: where we put their waste, where we exercise them, and how we treat them have all been hotly debated here in Wallyhood and throughout the city. The city has heard the complaints, and has launched a process for collecting your feedback.

We now segue to the more opinionated section of the article for one possible way to view a strategy for dogs.

Dogs and people have co-existed for millennia, so the dogs are not going anywhere, and as more people arrive, they will bring along more dogs. We have tried yelling “Get off my lawn!” and that has not worked terribly well as witnessed by the continued complaints and frustrations on all sides.

The increased enforcement and mounting fees highlight that the city views dogs as a liability. Something to regulated, and fines assessed for violating those regulations. Citizens for Off-Leash Areas have run the off-leash parks since their inception in 1997. The city donated land, and COLA agreed to maintain the facilities from their own revenues. Since 1997, no additional land has been provided nor have funds been directed to assist in maintenance. In that time, the city’s population (both human and canine) have expanded tremendously. In response to the growth, the city has simply ramped up enforcement. Again, the city views off leash areas as a liability.

Alternatively, off leash areas can be viewed as an asset. Speaking from my own experience, the dog park is the only place where I will regularly converse amiably with homeless people, blue collar workers, and white collar workers on a common topic: dogs. It is also somewhat unique in that off leash parks are a public good that directly supports entrepreneurship in the form of the robust dog walker industry (regulation and licensing of dog walkers is also part of the strategic plan, and possible topic for later article). It also so happens that COLA has a similar view of dog parks as an asset.

I spoke with Ellen Escarcega, the current Chair of COLA, and she has collected some useful information on how other cities view off leash areas. She emphasized that Seattle has only 25 acres of off leash areas with 15 acres represented by only two parks. Vancouver has 168 acres. Additionally, Vancouver allows mixed use spaces for off leash use. For example, times of limited park utilization are open for off leash use. For example, before 9 am on weekdays, upper woodland park would be available for off leash use. People could exercise their dogs before work and have negligible impact on other legitimate uses of the park.

Dogs are here to stay. We can continue to view them as a liability and shake our fists when their presence increasingly frustrates us. Alternatively, we can view them as an asset for a diverse and vibrant community, and support their expansion commiserate with expansion of other public assets.

Pick your point of view, and let city council know your thoughts when the release their draft plan next month.

22 Comments

I love dogs. I think we should find better ways for dogs to enjoy some freedom. But the arguments for dogs as a “public good” are spurious and will likely breed more resentment than clarity. Embrace dogs for what they are – companions, an optional luxury for most, an essential tool for others. The point is, don’t ignore the leash laws in the meantime and stop the various inexcusable misdemeanors with their waste. Oh and folks abusing companion laws to get permits are ultimately hurting people with real needs.

Earlier this week the city presented an overview of the mayor’s proposed 2035 Comprehensive Plan to the City Council PLUZ committee. One of the bullet points that seemed the most uncomfortable for council members was that they’re giving up on the hard number targets for open space, because as development continues they’re never going to be able to meet it or even make progress towards meeting it.

In that picture, dog park supporters will need to do better this to get anywhere. You need to start with some recognition of why dogs are seen as a liability and why COLA efforts to resolve those problems haven’t worked. The professional dog walkers might not be much use as a selling point, because some observers see them abusing the system.

When I see dog owners actually start being responsible and picking up after Precious and Fluffy drop a deuce on the path around Green Lake (and, for that matter, my parking strip), then I might start caring about the needs of dog owners.

I have a dog (and have had dogs my whole life) and I agree with you! I keep my dog on a leash and bought my house with a fenced back yard specifically so he would have space. I also bought a low maintenance breed for city dwelling to alleviate my guilt. No beagle, or other high energy or high needs breed, should live within the city limits unless the owner is prepared to spend time with the dog: it’s just cruel if you can’t run,exercise and engage a dog fully to its breed standard.

I didn’t see that conversation on FB page. I was bitten by an off-leash dog a several years ago on a sidewalk as I walked by a couple of folks and their off-leash dog. The owners assured me ” he didn’t mean to do it!” and that he was just startled because I was on the sidewalk. Since then I prefer to stay away from off-leash dogs and I have a deep respect for the laws covering dogs and leashes. Dog owners do need places for their dogs to play and run, I can agree,but without anyone being endangered or feeling unsafe.

Um, there’s no need to “be aware” of the stepped-up (and in my opinion, long overdue) enforcement of the existing ordinances if you are abiding by those ordinances. So, the warning is…what? “Watch out when you’re disobeying the law, you might get caught.” Not cool.

For the record, I wholly disagree with the assertion that the city views off leash areas as a liability. But my main point here is that it isn’t dogs that are the issue, it’s the conduct of dog owners. Sadly, that is the major contributing factor in how enthusiastic many of us can be about creating more off-leash areas. “I’m going to run my dog off-leash in areas where that’s not allowed, even if I get cited for it” is not the way to build public support.

Salutes, and thanks, to the responsible dog owners in our community. I like meeting you and your dogs when we are sharing our public spaces and enjoying them together.

As for those who have not licensed their dogs (that’s the majority in this city, right?), who run them off-leash where they shouldn’t, and who do not pick up after them? No romanticizing of Fido is going to change that your unneighborly and unlawful conduct is at the forefront. Instead of asking others to see dogs in a different way, I suggest you focus on changing how dog owners behave, so we can see THEM in a different way.

Every day I see a group of neighbors coming together on west side of Wallingford playfield and running their dogs. They throw the ball, the dogs chase it, the talk to each other, trade news and information. The dogs frolic, the community grows closer. I see no harm in it and I see real good.

I know I’m at odds with the other commenters, I am aware I am supporting people “breaking the law”. But y’all are used to that, I’m sure.

I’ve been there, actually, with a neighbor who takes her dog there. It’s a great time, generally, though reportedly there can be issues with some owners.

What this shows is that like a lot of things in life, this isn’t a black and white struggle between the forces of good and evil, it’s a complicated issue and we don’t have a really good answer for it. The article as published just breezes past that complexity as if it’s just about small minded haters “shaking our fists”. That’s a pretty low standard for discourse, if you ask me.

Personally, I think most city living situations are about as suited to a dog as a horse, and the only thing that makes it work as well as it does is that dogs are bred to be highly tolerant. What we’re dealing with here is part of that problem – city must provide public accommodations for dog owners, because they can’t provide for their dogs needs on their own. What’s sad is that these accommodations account for only brief interludes in a life mostly spent waiting alone in a house or apt.

I like that idyllic scene too, but the other side to that scene is that I live across the street from that park but can’t take my own dog there because the off leash dogs get him all worked up. So now I am one of those people who has my dog on the leash and can’t use the very park we see from our window. That breaks my heart because he would love to be out there running with them, but it wouldn’t be safe.

I also have encountered those Wallingford park dogs and, like Yani, have been driven from the park by them.

I obey leash laws because it is the right thing to do. But I strongly believe I should be able to walk my leashed dog through the park. Last fall, I was doing that when an off-leash Great Dane approached my much smaller dog. It is always a volatile situation when an off-leash dog approaches a leashed one, because the leashed dog (correctly) feels very vulnerable.

I hollered to Dane’s owner “Control your dog!” and tried to quickly walk my dog out of the park. The Dane followed. I kept hollering “Get your dog away from my dog!” as I tried to get my dog away. The unleashed dog did not respond to its owner’s call, but kept following. I just kept trying to get my dog out of there. This angered the owner of the unleashed Dane. She ordered me to stop so that she could catch her dog. I just kept quickly walking out of there. Then the “community” element kicked it. I was verbally harassed not only by the owner of the Dane, but also by some of the rest of the scofflaws who were preventing my legal use of the park. I suppose these people felt I had a community-based obligation to assist in ameliorating the obvious problems arising from their illegal park use. I don’t feel that I have that obligation.

When our son attended Hamilton, I used to volunteer with the after school program. It was important to give the kids a break midway through the two and half hours. We took the kids to the adjacent Wallingford Park for this purpose, Many of the kids on our program were terrified of dogs. I frequently had protect these kids by running off unleashed dogs and telling scofflaw dog owners to leash their dogs. The illegal activity seriously impacted many of our kids’ ability to enjoy their little recess in the park.

No, Jordan. Appropriating a public park for personal illegal activity which drives other community members away is not “community building” — unless you are thinking about building a community of selfish people who want to take personal control of our common areas and bond together to reassure each other that such behavior is OK.

For most people, dogs are a luxury. We should not cede community resources to dog owners who don’t actually have the time or the money for the luxury they have taken on.

That’s awful, I’m sorry that happened to you, and I agree that doesn’t fit with what I envision. That dog doesn’t belong in a public park. I believe that there are dogs that will never behave like that, and that they should be allowed to enjoy their freedoms. It’s not a black-and-white thing (“all dogs may be off-leash” v “no dogs may be off-leash”). I understand that that creates the question of “who gets to decide”. I wish we could use common sense and consensus instead of rules imposed without consideration of the individual circumstances.

I think common sense and consensus would lead to the same conclusion — you can’t leave it up to the dog owner.

Though, perhaps if the stakes were higher … Suppose the deal were, fine, forget the leash if you want – but if we catch the dog making any trouble while off leash, it will be euthanized, no exceptions.

That’s harsh, but dogs get euthanized all the time, that never caused any trouble, am I right? They can trade places.

I also wish that common sense were more in play here. Common sense would dictate “if you do not have voice control over your dog, please limit your dog’s off-leash activity to designated off-leash areas.”

I realize I have a different philosophy about dog ownership than many others do. At this point in my life, I don’t have a living space I consider suitable, nor the time to make TRAINING a dog my priority. So I don’t have a dog of my own. And when I walk my friend’s dog (an activity I thoroughly enjoy), the leash stays on because I do not have voice control over her.

That’s what I consider common sense. The lack of it in many dog owners–again, this is not about dogs but about dog owners–is why we there are these unfortunate incidents of out-of-control dogs rushing children, or the elderly, or regular folks simply standing on the sidewalk, or small shy dogs who ARE on leash, and so forth.

Providing freedom to our canine friends requires taking responsibility. I am grateful to those dog owners that rise to the occasion, the daily commitment of time and energy. But if someone defines “freedom” as their uncontrolled dog doing whatever it wants at the expense of others, well, we have a different philosophy about community, for sure.

I live next to this park and, after first moving here five years ago, had no idea that people gathered regularly with their off-leash dogs. But, when I first started going there with my kids, having dogs sprint across the grass right at my girls and knowing nothing about these dogs, there’s only one reaction I could take as a responsible parent: defend my kids, just in case. That’s a horrible feeling! If the city formally relegated and posted these hours, the panic of my kids potentially being attacked would go away simply because I would know not to take them there during posted times. Now that I’m a dog owner, it still frustrates me that I abide by the law and keep my dog on leash, only to have other dogs again sprint across the park at mine. Guess what? She doesn’t like it! My pet trainer said that off-leash dogs even create defensive behaviors in on-leash dogs that they wouldn’t exhibit if all of the dogs were on-leash. We do need more off-leash parks. But, in the interim, think perhaps less about how you’re breaking the law by letting your dogs charge freely at people and on-leash dogs and more about how rude, selfish, and potentially dangerous it is, even though you know your dog is sweet, would never do that, etc…

I love dogs and I love that there are parks for off-leash use. What I don’t love is people who leave their dogs outside for hours (in a fenced yard or leashed) and the barking that ensues. Get one going and another joins in! Thankfully, most of the neighbors who walk their dogs do pick up after them. In 10 years, I’ve only seen poop along our sidewalk twice.

Who does not love Dogs…..but I have said many times before the “Dog” issues are a VOLUME issue. Back in the day every 5th or 6th house had a dog, it was manageable. Now on some streets nearly every other house will have a dog. Sometimes 2 dogs. Huge Dogs. Sometimes is tiny tiny apartments. License the Dogs. One Dog per household. Dogs in apartments if you have amenities for them. Raise the cost of the licensing to pay for more Parks and enforcement. Imagine if every person in Wallingford wanted to own 10 cars. It would be a volume problem. Not a car problem. Higher taxes = Less Dogs = manageable situation = happiness for the dogs and humans who live in the city.

I don’t love dogs and know many people who either don’t like them or are indifferent. But I am resigned to tolerate them if they are on a leash, don’t bark and don’t touch me. On those scores, there are a lot of intolerable dogs around with companion humans that have a blind spot caused, I guess, by their caninophilia. If you think this makes me a crank, maybe you are suffering from the this malady.

I live near WP as well and find it odd to see folks pull up in their car and offload one, two, even five dogs to run off leash at the park. Even at the OLAs, owners are supposed to have their animals in sight and under direct control. Hard to imagine how this is possible with five dogs (plus there is the poop issue – it is not unusual to find a pile left unobserved by the master who is busy chatting away).

This system was in place when folks got their dog or when they moved in the neighborhood. No surprise here. I love dogs, but chose not to own one for the reason Donn cited: I did not wish to confine the animal alone during the day (dogs are social) and my yard was not large enough to run… and I certainly did not wish to drive my dogs to run.

Not saying that folks should not own dogs, just that it seems that owners should comply with the agreed upon rules, intended for the safety of all and present when they made the choice. It is extremely unfair to traumatized a child (a dog bounding across the field is pretty darn frightening when you are only 3 feet tall). I also regularly witness off-leash dogs charging leashed dogs and the pretty intense rumpus that follows.

License your animal (reportedly 60% in Seattle are not licensed). Use the OLAs. Leash your animal in non-OLA parks, plus to and from the park. Work the system to get more OLAs (and there is nothing that says an OLA has to be in a city park!). Our neighborhood is horribly short on open space and no sign that will change. Accept the fact that we will also be short on OLAs as well. And, please, if you are going to drive your dog to run, go to the OLA. Come on, folks! Crikey! Don’t be silly.

I love dogs. I have a dog. I’m an absolutist about obeying all dog control laws because they are crucial to urban livability. By contrast, leash law violators create a “tragedy of the commons” situation by appropriating shared space for their own personal use. Enforcement of dog control laws is vital if we are to stem such attacks on our community.

As a policy strategy, it seems to me we should not consider expanding Off Leash Areas until we have the scofflaws more under control. Good enforcement might actually reduce the number of dogs in Seattle and therefore the need for Off Leash Areas. With good enforcement, some owners might chose to re-home and others decide not to get a dog in the first place.

Despite favoring strict leash law enforcement, I’m alarmed by suggestions that Seattle could solve its loose dog problem by adopting polices which would harm non-dangerous dogs. Although the suggestion that any loose and out of control (but not actually attacking) dog be put down- or otherwise harmed -could never get political traction, the fact that some people make such suggestions is . . . chilling.

Is it possible that such ideas are being tossed out by inveterate scofflaws, in an attempt to make leash law advocates look both unreasonable and monstrously cruel??

Wallyhood needs you!

This community blog is all volunteer run, and we welcome articles from everyone in the Wallingford community. Something on your mind? Have a story to share? Please contact us at [email protected] today!

Editors rotate weekly. This week’s editor is Ben Robinson.

Subscribe

Get a daily summary of articles and forum conversations delivered to your email inbox.